The Tamesis
Public comments on EUDR changes are visible but can be submitted anonymously. While many brands have deforestation-free leather sourcing policies in place, it’s unclear how many have taken a public stance on the legal inclusion of leather.
“For some companies, it’s just a difference of moving from their own policies to the political realm, which I think seems like just a step away,” said CFJ’s Håkansson. “But it does matter because fashion is inherently political, so the industry has an obligation to engage in this space.”
The industry has made its own commitments through multi-stakeholder agreements and funds. In June 2023, the Textile Exchange and the Leather Working Group launched the Call to Action for Zero Deforestation of Leather, together with brand signatories such as Adidas, H&M Group and Inditex. That same year, Kering strengthened its commitment to end deforestation in its supply chains by 2025. Then, in 2025, WWF and Tapestry (which owns Coach, Kate Spade and Stuart Weitzman) launched the Deforestation-Free Leather Fund, which plans to raise $10 million from brands to support farm-level investments in traceability systems and improvements. Leather Work Group, Kering and Tapestry declined to comment publicly on the EUDR.
In many ways, Rycroft said, brands’ silence reinforces the need for regulation. “EUDR was introduced to stop deforestation by halting the ongoing cycle of market dynamics. It improves the bottom line for companies and brands that have been slow to act on sustainability issues, so everyone gets a performance boost.”
Anke Schulmeister-Oldenhove, Forest Manager at WWF’s European Policy Office, added in an email: “Leather’s exclusion shows one of the highest deforestation footprints among the commodities originally covered by the law, showing a disregard for clear evidence of environmental harm. This exemption gives consumers confidence in whether the products they buy are truly free of deforestation and forces responsible brands to operate in an uneven market.”
With a raft of fashion-focused laws on the horizon, Rice said excluding leather from the EUDR could set a precedent that would embolden lobbyists. “If leather is excluded based on industry arguments, which are being debunked, then that sets a very bad example for other industries,” he said. “They might think: ‘We don’t necessarily need to have science to back it up, we don’t need to prove that we’re already sustainable and not deforestation, we just need to have a very effective lobbying mechanism in Brussels to avoid scrutiny and legal obligations.'”
Rice from Client Earth said the inclusion of leather in the EUDR should be a “natural” thing for brands. “Fashion brands will continue to bear the risk of sourcing leather linked to Amazon deforestation, theft of indigenous land or human rights abuses, and there is a real cost to this reputational damage,” he said. “So not only do they lose the benefits of an EU-wide mechanism to ensure leather tanned in Europe is deforestation-free, traceable and legal, but they also face the risk of sourcing dirty leather if it breaks the law.”
The leather lobby may be powerful, but Rycroft is reassured by the progress being made by brands investing in cleaning up their leather supply chains. “I’ve always been an optimist,” she said. “There are people who are obviously lobbying against it, but there are also many companies that have put in place strong internal systems, they’ve invested within their value chain, they’re already making the shift, so they’re also working with policymakers to maintain that standard.”
